Ed Miliband

[IvanSTi]

Not sure if anyone has seen this video of the clown, but it's interesting listening. Yes sorry it's on the lad bible site.

http://www.theladbible.com/articles/video-of-ed-mi...

[anonymous-user]

TEKNOPUG said:

It’s a sad reflection on the intelligence of society that previous governments have bribed the electorate with their own money. Now they are borrowing money to bribe the electorate with their children’s and grandchildren’s money and still the public lap it up.

If I was to say to someone directly, “vote for me and I’ll give you £5000. By the way, I’ve taken out a £5k loan in your child’s name that they’ll have to pay back in the future, plus interest….” I suspect that they may actually question my actions and consider their voting options.

This, in spades. And it's a point that the Tories have repeatedly failed to articulate properly. The policies espoused by the SNP, Greens and Plaid last night will come at a heavy price for the next few generations.

[jonby]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Cobnapint said:

Guybrush said:

It's a quite shocking comment on many Brits to think of the number that must still be wanting Labour back in. These people really cannot be in full possession of what a balanced person would consider to be rational thought processes.

I really is quite mind blowing isn't it. Adding to that the number of people that think Natalie Bennett, who is even more Left than Labour, should be in charge, gives you some idea of the percentage of the UK voting population that have something 'missing' up top.

Scary stuff.

In answer to these comments, it is indeed frightening. In a TV comment show this morning an `undecided' female voter was asked her view of last nights farce debate. She said that Milliband came across as the strongest participant, and FFS! on the basis of that might vote labour! Of course when up against competitors such as the stupidity on legs representing the green party, it might well have been possible for millipede to `look' the strongest (out of those who partipated. Farage, as usual gave direct answers to direct questions, but the left don't do honesty and common sense, so he did not seem to be taken seriously by most of the audience.

Unfortunately EM has quite a good strategy. He used phrases last night like 'the mansion tax on homes worth £2 million will pay for the NHS' and 'millionaires under the tories have received a £43,000 tax cut'

Now patently the mansion tax will not pay for the NHS - the former will raise a relative drop in the ocean and the latter costs 10s of billions. By 'millionaires', he actually means people that earn £1million per annum which is not the same thing. But this constant rhetoric about 'the rich' will win votes - it's trying to demonise anyone that earns a lot of money as if they are all scroungers, when in fact it's those people that are paying to subsidise everyone else - he may use evocative phrases like 'millionaires' and 'rich' but in reality, he wants to f*** over anyone who earns over £50k per year

As I say though, it's working........

[Pan Pan Pan]

jonby said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Cobnapint said:

Guybrush said:

It's a quite shocking comment on many Brits to think of the number that must still be wanting Labour back in. These people really cannot be in full possession of what a balanced person would consider to be rational thought processes.

I really is quite mind blowing isn't it. Adding to that the number of people that think Natalie Bennett, who is even more Left than Labour, should be in charge, gives you some idea of the percentage of the UK voting population that have something 'missing' up top.

Scary stuff.

In answer to these comments, it is indeed frightening. In a TV comment show this morning an `undecided' female voter was asked her view of last nights farce debate. She said that Milliband came across as the strongest participant, and FFS! on the basis of that might vote labour! Of course when up against competitors such as the stupidity on legs representing the green party, it might well have been possible for millipede to `look' the strongest (out of those who partipated. Farage, as usual gave direct answers to direct questions, but the left don't do honesty and common sense, so he did not seem to be taken seriously by most of the audience.

Unfortunately EM has quite a good strategy. He used phrases last night like 'the mansion tax on homes worth £2 million will pay for the NHS' and 'millionaires under the tories have received a £43,000 tax cut'

Now patently the mansion tax will not pay for the NHS - the former will raise a relative drop in the ocean and the latter costs 10s of billions. By 'millionaires', he actually means people that earn £1million per annum which is not the same thing. But this constant rhetoric about 'the rich' will win votes - it's trying to demonise anyone that earns a lot of money as if they are all scroungers, when in fact it's those people that are paying to subsidise everyone else - he may use evocative phrases like 'millionaires' and 'rich' but in reality, he wants to f*** over anyone who earns over £50k per year

As I say though, it's working........

Whilst it must be admitted, there are those who are very rich who don't pay their due taxes, a large number of `millionaires, are those who have started and run successful business which give employment and income to many of the rest of us.
So you are correct. Millipedes attempts to demonize the rich as all being non tax paying scroungers, is no different to painting `everyone' who claims benefits, as feckless, lazy scroungers.
The problem is, whilst there may indeed be a number of the very rich who do not pay due taxes, their numbers will be relatively small (I know of some millionaires, but I don't know any millionaires) But on the other hand, those at the other end of the `types of scrounger' spectrum may number in the million, all of them with their hands out for cash they do not, and have no intention of earning.
Given that those rich who do pay their taxes already contribute the greatest proportion
of the governments tax income, I worry that p*llocks like Millipede will alienate these people to the point they say enough and take themselves and their businesses and jobs to places which do not demonize success. Which many could very easily do.
The rich know full well how to look after themselves, and the poor seem to get looked after very well by the benefits system. It is the poor s*ds the middle classes who seem to work, and pay their taxes, and take as little as possible off the state, who will pay
the brunt of Millipedes `taxes on the rich'

[jonby]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Whilst it must be admitted, there are those who are very rich who don't pay their due taxes, a large number of `millionaires, are those who have started and run successful business which give employment and income to many of the rest of us.
So you are correct. Millipedes attempts to demonize the rich as all being non tax paying scroungers, is no different to painting `everyone' who claims benefits, as feckless, lazy scroungers.
The problem is, whilst there may indeed be a number of the very rich who do not pay due taxes, their numbers will be relatively small

Quite right but I think it's even more extreme

If you don't pay tax because you are breaking the law (i.e. avoidance), it's not the rules that need changing, it's enforcement of the law

If you are taking advantage of a loophole that is deemed unfair, i.e certain forms of tax evasion, then the loophole can be changed through law

When EM talks about new tax rules, he is talking about raising the rate of tax. By definition, the only people who will be caught by that are those who neither avoid nor evade tax. But EM regularly suggests that the 'tax dodgers' will pay more when he raises taxes - that's clearly ludicrous as tax rates could be 100% and you still won't raise anything from the dodgers

Meanwhile, putting up taxes will actually achieve just one thing - more people will be tempted to evade/avoid and the net result is a lower overall tax take in £s terms. You couldn't make it up.......

[Rovinghawk]

jonby said:

If you don't pay tax because you are breaking the law (i.e. avoidance), it's not the rules that need changing, it's enforcement of the law

If you are taking advantage of a loophole that is deemed unfair, i.e certain forms of tax evasion, then the loophole can be changed through law

Learn the difference between avoidance & evasion before talking about them. Please.

[anonymous-user]

Rovinghawk said:

jonby said:

If you don't pay tax because you are breaking the law (i.e. avoidance), it's not the rules that need changing, it's enforcement of the law

If you are taking advantage of a loophole that is deemed unfair, i.e certain forms of tax evasion, then the loophole can be changed through law

Learn the difference between avoidance & evasion before talking about them. Please.

Or you could have said

"Good post, but you seems to have transposed avoidance and evasion."

[johnxjsc1985]

Greg66 said:

Or you could have said

"Good post, but you seems to have transposed avoidance and evasion."

but that would have been the good thing to do rather than the usual smartarse thing.
I still understood his post.

[mph1977]

last few posts demonstrates the deliberate confusiuon created by labour and the lefites over legitimate avoidance / use of the reliefs that can be claimed for various things/ designed to be tax efficent products ( e.g. pensions or isa) and illegal evasion

[jonby]

Greg66 said:

Rovinghawk said:

jonby said:

If you don't pay tax because you are breaking the law (i.e. avoidance), it's not the rules that need changing, it's enforcement of the law

If you are taking advantage of a loophole that is deemed unfair, i.e certain forms of tax evasion, then the loophole can be changed through law

Learn the difference between avoidance & evasion before talking about them. Please.

Or you could have said

"Good post, but you seems to have transposed avoidance and evasion."

thanks :-)

As it happens, it makes not one jot of difference to my post which was patently not about the difference between the two but point taken - not reading posts for errors before I submit is definitely one of my flaws - guilty !

[johnxjsc1985]

mph1977 said:

last few posts demonstrates the deliberate confusiuon created by labour and the lefites over legitimate avoidance / use of the reliefs that can be claimed for various things/ designed to be tax efficent products ( e.g. pensions or isa) and illegal evasion

friend of mine owned a store earned a good living paid very little if any tax managed to put his kids through School.
Now he has 3 adult offspring all contributing positively to the country ie actually working and paying tax etc.
Another lad I know has 4 kids he doesnt work so he doesnt pay tax but he has a car and has holidays.
its likely his children will not be so productive after seeing their father manage quite well on state benefits.
So who is better for the country stupid question I know but I am sick and tired of this massive swing to left wing politics of the 70's I really thought we had got past that crap.

[Pan Pan Pan]

The feckless labour support base, seems to think that somewhere there is the magic money tree, (which they refer to as the rich) who if screwed the way Labour say they will screw them if they get in, could possibly lead to some unfortunate discoveries / developments which equate to the magic money tree not being quite what they all thought it might be. e.g:

1. There aren't quite as many `very rich' as labour thought there are.
2. The `rich' aren't quite as rich as labour thought they were.
3. if there are a lot of `rich' and they get threatened with being taken to the cleaners here, they will just do what the rich can always do and s*d off somewhere else taking their money and businesses with them. There will always be countries who will welcome such people with open arms.
It is true that vast wealth in the UK is in the hands of a small number of people, but I don't mind this, provided those with that vast wealth pay `their' proportional rate of tax like the rest of us.
The problem is that the rich, very often get rich, by being a bit sharper (in several ways) than the government, and the average citizen in the street, and can usually run rings around both (if they feel the need to)

[wc98]

IvanSTi said:

Not sure if anyone has seen this video of the clown, but it's interesting listening. Yes sorry it's on the lad bible site.

http://www.theladbible.com/articles/video-of-ed-mi...

excellent find. i wonder if any of the rest are the same ?

[jonby]

Pan Pan Pan said:

The feckless labour support base, seems to think that somewhere there is the magic money tree, (which they refer to as the rich) who if screwed the way Labour say they will screw them if they get in, could possibly lead to some unfortunate discoveries / developments which equate to the magic money tree not being quite what they all thought it might be. e.g:

1. There aren't quite as many `very rich' as labour thought there are.
2. The `rich' aren't quite as rich as labour thought they were.
3. if there are a lot of `rich' and they get threatened with being taken to the cleaners here, they will just do what the rich can always do and s*d off somewhere else taking their money and businesses with them. There will always be countries who will welcome such people with open arms.
It is true that vast wealth in the UK is in the hands of a small number of people, but I don't mind this, provided those with that vast wealth pay `their' proportional rate of tax like the rest of us.
The problem is that the rich, very often get rich, by being a bit sharper (in several ways) than the government, and the average citizen in the street, and can usually run rings around both (if they feel the need to)

Exactly. Plus I am offended at the Labour suggestion someone earning £25k and paying a few thousand a year in tax is paying their way but that I pay tens of thousands of pounds a year in tax and am not paying my way.

Meanwhile the super rich (which I most certainly am nowhere remotely near) avoid & evade tax far more than anyone else primarily because they have more options available to them than someone earning less money - lets not kid ourselves that more people wouldn't do it if the option was available to them, just as more people would speed if there were less chance of being caught. But when a small businessman is already effectively paying more than 50% tax when you include employer NI contributions, every tax rise on top is simply likely to lead to people looking that much harder at ways of minimising their tax bill

[Pan Pan Pan]

jonby said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

The feckless labour support base, seems to think that somewhere there is the magic money tree, (which they refer to as the rich) who if screwed the way Labour say they will screw them if they get in, could possibly lead to some unfortunate discoveries / developments which equate to the magic money tree not being quite what they all thought it might be. e.g:

1. There aren't quite as many `very rich' as labour thought there are.
2. The `rich' aren't quite as rich as labour thought they were.
3. if there are a lot of `rich' and they get threatened with being taken to the cleaners here, they will just do what the rich can always do and s*d off somewhere else taking their money and businesses with them. There will always be countries who will welcome such people with open arms.
It is true that vast wealth in the UK is in the hands of a small number of people, but I don't mind this, provided those with that vast wealth pay `their' proportional rate of tax like the rest of us.
The problem is that the rich, very often get rich, by being a bit sharper (in several ways) than the government, and the average citizen in the street, and can usually run rings around both (if they feel the need to)

Exactly. Plus I am offended at the Labour suggestion someone earning £25k and paying a few thousand a year in tax is paying their way but that I pay tens of thousands of pounds a year in tax and am not paying my way.

Meanwhile the super rich (which I most certainly am nowhere remotely near) avoid & evade tax far more than anyone else primarily because they have more options available to them than someone earning less money - lets not kid ourselves that more people wouldn't do it if the option was available to them, just as more people would speed if there were less chance of being caught. But when a small businessman is already effectively paying more than 50% tax when you include employer NI contributions, every tax rise on top is simply likely to lead to people looking that much harder at ways of minimising their tax bill

I guess everyone with more than a few brain cells, knows that for a country to function any where near properly, it must have public services, roads, schools, hospitals, police, the military etc. and therefore most `reasonable' people pay their due taxes.
The problem groups however exist at the opposite ends of the financial spectrum, with those super rich who despite having vast wealth, still try to avoid paying their `due' taxes (why for heaven sake, its not like its going to change their lifestyles?) But there are a large number of rich who do pay their proportion of taxes, and these are being lumped in by labour with the super rich tax dodgers.
The group at the other end of the financial spectrum, are the, can work but won`t work scroungers who use the benefits system as a life style choice. These could be as bad for the country as the super rich who don't pay due taxes, because 1. There are a lot more of them, than there are the super rich. 2. they too contribute little or nothing to the countries well being. 3 They take out, more than they have ever contributed, meaning they are a net drain on the countries financial health. The super rich tend not to use public services in the same way as the rest of us. preferring to go private when it comes to hospitals, transportation etc, simply because `private' is likely to be faster, and better than services provided by the state, and they can afford it.
I don't like paying tax anymore than the next person, but realize that if I want certain national facilities (such as roads etc) I must pay due tax, I think deep down most of us know this. But we can rightly feel angry, when we are getting stiffed, by those at both ends of the financial spectrum, who do not pay proportionally into the tax system.

[Richyboy]

IvanSTi said:

Not sure if anyone has seen this video of the clown, but it's interesting listening. Yes sorry it's on the lad bible site.

http://www.theladbible.com/articles/video-of-ed-mi...

Its gone. Seems like they're hoovering up all the negative online stuff from the last cabinet.

[motco]

It's there now...

[Funk]

motco said:

It's there now...

Not for me...

YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlTggc0uBA8

Comment from the interviewer: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/bfensm

said:

If news reporters and cameras are only there to be used by politicians as recording devices for their scripted soundbites, at best that is a professional discourtesy. At worst, if we are not allowed to explore and examine a politician’s views, then politicians cease to be accountable in the most obvious way. So the fact that the unedited interview has found its way onto YouTube in all its absurdity, to be laughed at along with all the clips of cats falling off sofas, is perfectly proper.

Worth a read!

[steveT350C]

Im sure this must have already been posted, but Ed is clearly struggling, and failing miserably, to coordinate his facial muscles to produce anything remotely resembling a genuine smile...

[Laurel Green]

They say you shouldn't mock the afflicted, but...